Dan Honemann
-
Posts
10,290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dan Honemann
-
-
On 3/25/2024 at 10:06 PM, J. J. said:
So, how would you phrase the incidental main motion?
Well, J.J., such motions can range from something as simple as "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void" to a complex resolution with preamble and multiple resolving paragraphs, but I don't think that an experience parliamentarian such as yourself should be inquiring as to how to draft a main motion.
-
On 3/25/2024 at 7:31 PM, J. J. said:
I agree, but I am asking why (or how) you would distinguish been a R/ASPA and a Point of Order.
That's easy. They bear no resemblance to each other, and differ in virtually every respect.
-
On 3/25/2024 at 4:27 PM, J. J. said:
And how would that not fall under the rules for rescind/amend something previously adopted? 6:23 does not cover it specifically.
Motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are applicable to bylaws, rules, policies, decisions, or choices which have continuing force and effect due to having been validly adopted. It is for this reason that it takes more than just a majority vote for the adoption of these motions.
On 3/25/2024 at 4:49 PM, Rob Elsman said:I think I am going to take back my previous agreement with Mr. Honemann about the making of an incidental main motion when no other business is pending. The proper motion is Point of Order, made "...at any time that the action has continuing force and effect..." See RONR (12th ed.) 23:6. This is even true when it is not the case that "...one of the resolution's conflicting sections (which is therefor null and void) is affecting business that is pending during a meeting of the assembly." "At any time" means at any time.
Points of order relating to breaches of a continuing nature, as described in 23:6, do not need to be raised promptly at the time of the breach, and may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach, but this does not mean that such a point of order can be raised at a time when the action invalidly taken in no way relates to the business which is pending before the assembly. Points of order must always relate in some way to the business at hand. I think that a fair reading of what is said in Section 23 makes this abundantly clear.
-
On 3/22/2024 at 5:38 PM, Guest Joe L said:
Continuing, are the conflicting parts null and void now, or does the point order need to be made first?
I agree with Mr. Elsman's response to this question, but would note that a point of order can be raised only if and when one of the resolution's conflicting sections (which is therefor null and void) is affecting business that is pending during a meeting of the assembly. If it is desired to correct the problem before such opportunities arise, an incidental main motion can be made while no business is pending, and adopted by majority vote, declaring that the conflicting sections are null and void.
-
On 3/23/2024 at 7:46 AM, Guest Charles said:
Can a motion to recess be made for a time and date certain, not to exceed the date and time of the next quarterly meeting?
Context: The Bylaws of an Organization require action upon an item (selection of a new executive due to a vacancy) at the next meeting of the Board; A Board can't reach consensus and desires to break for further discussions or background/research and wants to recess the meeting to a date and time certain, but prior to the next quarterly meeting of the Board to be compliant with their Bylaws.
The motion to use to accomplish this is the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 22:1-20. Here are some excerpts:
"22:1 The object of the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn (also referred to as the motion to 'fix the time for an adjourned meeting') is to set the time, and sometimes the place, for another meeting to continue business of the session, with no effect on when the present meeting will adjourn."
"22:9 Effect of the Motion. Whether introduced as a privileged or a main motion, the effect of this motion is to establish an adjourned meeting—that is, another meeting that will be a continuation of the session at which the motion is adopted. Unlike a special meeting, an adjourned meeting does not require notice, although it is desirable to give such notice if feasible. An adjourned meeting should not be confused with a special meeting, which is a separate session called, in ordinary societies, as prescribed by the bylaws."
"22:12 Forms in which this motion may be made are: 'I move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet at 2:00 P.M. tomorrow'; 'I move that when this meeting adjourns, it stand adjourned to meet at 8:00 P.M. on Wednesday, April 2, at the Riggs Hotel'; or 'I move that on adjournment, the meeting adjourn to meet at the call of the chair.'"
-
On 3/21/2024 at 6:18 PM, Guest Joe L said:
Thank you, again.
A little more detail:
The last "It is Further Resolved" finishes with "...that the purpose, governance, administration and management of the Fund and the Committee are established and defined by the plan of operation as hereinafter set forth".
What follows next in the resolution is the plan with the sections described in my preceding reply. And it is a few of those sections that are in conflict.
Could these sections that are in conflict with your constitution have been deleted from the resolution at the time when it was being considered for adoption without affecting the remainder in any way? If so, I think a point of order can be raised and sustained voiding these sections without nullifying any of the others.
-
On 3/21/2024 at 7:40 AM, Guest DetroitWHS said:
Not sure if it would change things, but these were submitted as proposed amendments to the bylaws, and the bylaws committee will be presenting these during their report.
Is there a more efficient way to have these presented or is it required to have each one presented individually with the delegates deciding "yes or no" before moving to the next alternative?
Take a look at RONR (12th ed.,) 57:6-9 and see if this is of any help.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 8:08 PM, Guest Joe L said:
Thanks for the replies. Regarding Dan Honeman's request for more details:
The Resolution was in a typical resolution form, with a "Whereas" and a few "it is [further] resolveds" followed but the plan of operation for the Committee. Everything was in the Resolution, and a single vote was taken. The plan includes sections about the Committee make-up, how members were selected, term lengths, consecutive term limits, reporting frequency, account management, fund distribution guidance, emergency distribution guidance, how to amend the resolution, and disposition of funds if the organization ceases to exist. It is my understanding that the Resolution followed a template provided by the organization that church belongs to. I don't know if that template of the plan had blanks to be filled in, or if it was just a "typical" plan used elsewhere.
Joe
You say that this resolution which was adopted contains a few "it is [further] resolveds". If it is several of these "it is [further] resolveds" that are in conflict with provisions in the constitution, and if they could have been deleted from the resolution at the time when it was being considered for adoption without affecting the remainder in any way, then I think a point of order can be raised and sustained voiding these "it is [further] resolveds" without nullifying any of the others.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 4:18 PM, Princess_Mayhem said:
In our By Laws it is state, "The term of office for said officers and board positions shall be for one year, January 1-December 31 of that year, and/or until their successors are elected and qualified.
Well, that presents an interesting question. Let's see what the regulars on this forum have to say about it.
In any event, it does appear that if any disciplinary proceedings of any kind are to be instituted against an officer, these proceedings will have to be conducted by your membership, not your board.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 3:18 PM, Guest DetroitWHS said:
For consideration at a convention, four alternative compositions of the voting members were submitted; all registered members, delegates from the subordinate chapters, delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council, and delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents. To save time from voting on each proposal individually, could it be recommended to create a blank and fill in all the alternatives to consider them all together?
No.
-
Take a look at 62:16 and then check your bylaws to see what they say about terms in office. You will then know whether your membership can remove this officer from office simply by the adoption of a motion to do so or whether formal disciplinary proceedings will need to be conducted pursuant to the provisions of 63:1-37.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 12:55 PM, Princess_Mayhem said:
All officers are elected by the membership. Before it was presented Via Email to call a meeting to investigate the wrongdoings of an officer because she was going outside her duties as treasurer and sending out falsified 1099 tax documentation to a member. Even after all the fact finding that no 1099 should have been sent she still refused to amend said documentation so we had to pas that on to our CPA to take care of. We still have not received information from Treasurer that all proper documentation has been sent to CPA so they can complete our taxes. People on the board were upset because it was put out via email and they didn't think that was appropriate because they felt it should be kept off the internet. So no investigation happened because they felt it wasn't appropriate to call the meeting. I our By-Laws it does not state specifically what the board is allowed to do in this situation, but it does state that "the proceedings of the association shale be governed by and conducted according to the latest edition of Robert's Manual of Parliamentary Rules".
As best I can determine your board has no authority to take any disciplinary action against this officer, and has not attempted to do so. It would appear that any disciplinary action will have to be initiated by your membership.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 12:09 PM, Princess_Mayhem said:
I read through this thank you. Part of the issue is I tried to go through the process of the removal of the officer earlier this year and Board decided to keep her on. Im not sure it will have a different outcome the second time around especially with the conflict of interest with said officer working with a couple of board members on their taxes.
What, exactly, did you do earlier this year when you "tried to go through the process of the removal of the officer earlier this year and Board decided to keep her on". By what authority did you do this? Did the membership or the board elect this officer to the office which she holds? Do your bylaws give the board authority to remove her?
-
On 3/20/2024 at 10:05 AM, Princess_Mayhem said:
Good Morning, I have quite the situation going on and could use some advise on where I stand on how I am utilizing RRONR and if as a board we need to get a lawyer involved. We are a non profit member group with a board. We have an office who is causing some unnecessary challenges. She has thrown out a serious allegation of one of our members is a "known abuser" towards this board member. Now this is the first time this has been brought up while they both have been apart of the club for that past few years. I take this matter very seriously but so I ,as president, wanted to call an executive meeting of board members only to get the details and facts before taking to the general meeting. The officer with the allegations wants to take it straight to the general meeting without stating who the "known abuser" and it could only be 1 of 2 people. Said officer is now declining the invite to the executive meeting because she does not feel it is within the laws by which we are governed by in our state. We have By-Laws and within those By-Laws it states that we are governed by Robert's Rules of order. So i need to know where I stand and what can I do? I feel there is also a conflict of interest between said officer and another board member because the officer is helping them with their taxes. So i feel that there could be a biased opinion. I feel like this officer is holding the board hostage if she isn't willing to follow the rules and i am just unsure on what my rights are as president.
As President of an organization whose bylaws state that that its proceedings are governed by Robert's Rules of Order, the first thing you need to do is read what is said in Chapter XX concerning disciplinary procedures. Having done that, if you have any further questions you should feel free to post them here.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:
In the case of a single resolution, however, how exactly does this work? Does the chair state that certain words, sentences, or paragraphs in the resolution are null and void?
Suppose a resolution such as that found in 27:7 (“Resolved, That the Society congratulate its member Ernest Dunn on his novel Crestwood, and that three copies be purchased for the Society's library”) is adopted without amendment, and the organization's constitution prohibits purchase of any books other than scholarly treatises directly related to the purposes for which the Society was formed. If Mr. Dunn's novel clearly does not meet this standard, which it does not, I think a point of order could be raised and sustained voiding the decision to purchase copies of it without nullifying the Society's congratulations.
I"m sure we are all agreed that additional facts from Guest Joe L would be helpful.
-
As has been noted, your board has only such power as is delegated to it by your Constitution or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it. RONR (12th ed.) 49:5
If your organization has a board that has gone rouge, your organization's membership certainly has the power to rein it in if it desires to do so. 23:9 tells us that (emphases supplied):
"If the executive board of a society takes action that exceeds the board's instructions or authority, that conflicts with a decision made by the assembly of the society, or that falls under any of the categories listed in 23:6, a point of order can be raised at a board meeting at any time during the continuance of the breach. If the point of order is sustained, the action must be declared null and void. Alternatively, the society's assembly can adopt an incidental main motion by majority vote declaring that the board's action is null and void; or, if it is affecting business at a meeting of the assembly, the board's action can be declared null and void by a ruling of the chair relating to the affected business or on a relevant point of order raised by a member. It is also possible for the assembly to bring disciplinary measures against the board members who voted for the improper action. If the assembly finds itself in sympathy with the board's action and the action is one that that assembly could have authorized in advance, the assembly can instead ratify the action as explained in 10:54–57."
-
On 3/19/2024 at 2:07 PM, Guest Heinen said:
Can a motion to reimburse a member for an expense after the fact be in order?
Yes, it can be, but whether it actually will be in order depends upon the particular facts .
Can you elaborate a bit upon the situation you have in mind?
-
On 3/19/2024 at 9:06 AM, Anthony said:
We have exhausted all of our options and are now looking for a lawyer. Does the court have any say in a County Party organization?
You'll have to ask the lawyer.
-
On 3/18/2024 at 7:50 PM, Josh Martin said:
The entire resolution. There is no mechanism to declare just part of a resolution null and void.
But a resolution, once adopted, is no longer a resolution, it is something else.
But aside from that, I would think that if a series of resolutions or motions is adopted by the adoption of a single main motion, such as described in 10:25 and 27:10, and one of them conflicts with the constitution, a point of order concerning its validity could be raised without affecting the others.
Guest Joe L seems to be referring to a similar situation. Additional details would be helpful.
-
On 3/17/2024 at 11:08 AM, Wright Stuff said:
Maybe you could describe ONE example you’ve seen.
One example of such a motion having been made occurred during one of NAP's conventions a number of years ago. Perhaps someone else who is familiar with this particular occasion will be willing to provide you with the details.
-
On 3/18/2024 at 8:46 AM, Josh Martin said:
I appreciate the clarification.
So the most that a subordinate board could do to limit debate on a permanent basis, without authorization from the parent assembly, would to decide to enforce the ten minute limit applicable in ordinary assemblies, since the board may determine whether (and to what extent) it shall utilize the small board rules.
Yes, a subordinate board may determine whether (and to what extent) it shall utilize the small board rules. What it may not do is create a special rule of order reducing the ten minute time limit for each speech imposed by RONR in 43:8, and any attempt to do so will be null and void (in this connection, see 23:9).
As previously noted, however, the board is free, during any one of its sessions, to limit debate for the remainder of that session, or for any part thereof, or for any pending question, but a motion to do any of these things will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (43:16-17).
I suspect that what is of major significance to Guest ARDENT is the fact that his 3 member minority can prevent the adoption of any motion to limit debate such as those described in the immediately preceding paragraph, provided, of course, that they are present when the vote is taken and vote against it.
-
On 3/17/2024 at 1:16 PM, Josh Martin said:
My understanding of the additional language at the start of this sentence was to provide latitude for subordinate boards to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate. Such a rule does not conflict with RONR, because the rule itself provides for the adoption of a rule of order superseding it.
I strongly disagree. I do not see how you can draw the inference that you do from what is said at the outset of 43:8, or how you came to the understanding that the "additional language at the start of this sentence was to provide latitude for subordinate boards to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate."
It is somewhat informative to note that in 43:15, RONR says that "[t]he rule allowing each member two speeches of ten minutes' length per day on each debatable question can be made either more restrictive or more liberal for all meetings of a society by adopting a special rule of order by a two-thirds vote after notice, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (2:14ff.; see also 10:44–51)" whereas in 43:16 we are told that "[a]n assembly at any session can change the limits of debate, for that session only, by means of a main motion adopted by a two-thirds vote without notice." (Emphasis supplied.)
-
The point is that this subordinate board does not have authority to adopt such a special rule of order unless the bylaws specifically say so (which I doubt).
-
On 3/17/2024 at 8:46 AM, Wright Stuff said:
This motion is very interesting. I just learned of it today. Do I understand it correctly that the motion does not require a vote and that it is “passed” by a second? Have you ever moved it or seen it moved? I’d love to hear your experience with its use. 37:46
The correct name of this motion is Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.
I don't think that I would characterize this motion as having been "passed" when it has been properly moved and seconded. Making and seconding this motion simply means that it cannot be called up until another day.
Yes, I've seen it used but I'm not about to expend the time and effort to describe it all. 😀
Parts of a Resolution in conflict with constitution
in General Discussion
Posted
Words mean something, and there is a substantial difference between moving that a rule be declared null and void and moving that it be rescinded. Furthermore, the basis for moving that something be declared null and void will almost certainly have to be disclosed in debate on the motion, and if cast in the form of a resolution, will most likely be set forth in a preamble.
I was just trying to give you the simplest form of motion to declare a rule null and void that came to mind. It will not be at all difficult to incorporate in such a motion a declaration that the rule in question conflicts with such and such a provision in the bylaws or constitution.
The fact remains that a point of order must always relate in some way to (be incidental to) the business at hand. If not, a main motion is needed to bring the matter before the assembly.